SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA—Testimony in the giant Apple v. Samsung patent trial is entering its final hours, and nerves are fraying on all sides. US District Judge Lucy Koh laid into lawyers this morning, demanding to know how she could be expected to go through 75 pages of objections to witnesses that she doesn't believe will have time to testify in any case.

"You want me to do an order on 75 pages tonight? When, unless you're smoking crack, you know that these witnesses are not going to be called?" Koh shouted at Apple lawyers. "Who is going to call all these witnesses when you have less than four hours left?"

At the midmorning break, Samsung had less than two hours of time available to present its case to the jury, while Apple had less than four hours. (Judge Koh gave each side 25 hours total for the trial, not including opening and closing arguments). The great majority of the 20+ witnesses still listed to testify are Apple witnesses.

"Your honor, first of all, I'm not smoking crack," said Apple lawyer Bill Lee. "We have timed it out."

Apple lawyer Michael Jacobs also stepped forward, assuring her that they had done a time test, and could get through 20 witnesses today and tomorrow in its rebuttal case against Samsung. "We didn't mean to burden the court," he said.

"You filed 75 pages of objections!" said Koh. "What do you mean you didn't mean to burden the court?"

Koh promised Apple's lawyers that if they were overshooting the mark in their estimates, she would think of a penalty. "If it turns out I will have gone through 75 pages of objections for people who are not realistically expected to be called, then I'm going to think up a proper tax for that," she said.

is koh's behaviour normal? seems out of place to me but I dont really know standard judge behaviour. Is her behaviour grounds enough for either side to call impartiality or misstrial or something? will be a factor in an appeal after trial?

Eh, I'd like her better if she had immediately thrown the expert that said that the Droid Charge looked like an iPhone out of the courtroom. Or better yet, just charge him with perjury on the spot. This whole trial is a bit of farce...

I've hated her since day 1 for her ridiculous restrictions and appearance of impartiality. This made me like her a bit more, however, like someone commented on another site covering the same "smoking crack" story, she seems to be similar to sports officials who (wrongly) want to be the center of attention when calling a game instead of making the right calls.

is koh's behaviour normal? seems out of place to me but I dont really know standard judge behaviour. Is her behaviour grounds enough for either side to call impartiality or misstrial or something? will be a factor in an appeal after trial?

Judges reading the riot act to lawyers is nothing new. It seems like she hammered both sides today, just Apple more so.

is koh's behaviour normal? seems out of place to me but I dont really know standard judge behaviour. Is her behaviour grounds enough for either side to call impartiality or misstrial or something? will be a factor in an appeal after trial?

Apple and Samsung seem to have both hit a nerve with the Judge, I think its fair for a Judge to give (legal) instructions to both Apple and Samsung, and if ignore express a level of disappointment at such behavior. Samsung attempts to enter evidence late, Apple seems to issue huge lists of objections, perhaps not even trying indicate which objections are priority.

I think the judge is fine. I believe it was the Oracle and Motorola case, they ignore the Judge's orders, and the Judge started to fire back at them. It seems both Apple and Samsung are pissing of the Judge, good luck finding another judge that won't be pissed, you pissed of another judge by ignoring their instructions.

is koh's behaviour normal? seems out of place to me but I dont really know standard judge behaviour. Is her behaviour grounds enough for either side to call impartiality or misstrial or something? will be a factor in an appeal after trial?

The exact phrase "smoking crack" is unusual, but an Article III judge yelling at lawyers like naughty children? No, that's not particularly unusual, particularly when the lawyers deserve to be treated that way (and I think the lawyer here probably asked for it with those 75 pages of briefing on twenty-something rebuttal witnesses when the time for trial is essentially over).

I've hated her since day 1 for her ridiculous restrictions and appearance of impartiality. This made me like her a bit more, however, like someone commented on another site covering the same "smoking crack" story, she seems to be similar to sports officials who (wrongly) want to be the center of attention when calling a game instead of making the right calls.

To be honest, given this is merely the opening shots in what will be a long drawn, multiple appeal, legal battle, I think Judge Koh did the right thing putting the limit in place. The outcome of this trial only determines who files the appeal for the next round. Meanwhile, there's 14* jurors who are living life-interrupted right now so that two corps can engage in sniping at one another. You may as well claim the lawyers are the ones who want to be the center of attention when the engineers are the ones playing the game.

is koh's behaviour normal? seems out of place to me but I dont really know standard judge behaviour. Is her behaviour grounds enough for either side to call impartiality or misstrial or something? will be a factor in an appeal after trial?

Judges reading the riot act to lawyers is nothing new. It seems like she hammered both sides today, just Apple more so.

Such much for Judge Koh being home court advantage for Apple.

I feel like more than anything else, she's on the side of doing as little work as possible:

She sided against Samsung when they provided late evidence, it would have been more work for her to incorporate it if she had to.

She sided against both by imposing a time limit, to make sure that the case wouldn't drag on.

And now she's siding against apple, because she doesn't want to read another 75 pages about this case.

I'm kind of questioning Judge Koh's ability as a judge. Or, at least, a judge in patent cases.

Even though a number of judges dislike patent cases for a number of reasons, it was clear from the outset that she didn't want this case. Additionally, her ordering of the CEOs to meet to try and settle hints at a limited awareness of how companies operate. Her clock-watching seems almost compulsive, to the point of foregoing justice in the name of expediency.

While it's commendable to want a quick and fair trial, she seems to be leaning a little to heavily on the "quick" end of the equation. Yes, you have to run a tight courtroom. Yes, the judge is in charge. Yes, attorneys are happy to take advantage if they can. But the judge's entire approach in this case just seems a little cockeyed.

I really hope that at the end of all the appeals, something drastic happens. Something that would make normal people care about patents. Like Apple getting banned from selling iPhones in the US. Can you imagine how quickly we'd get legislation passed curtailing software patents?

is koh's behaviour normal? seems out of place to me but I dont really know standard judge behaviour. Is her behaviour grounds enough for either side to call impartiality or misstrial or something? will be a factor in an appeal after trial?

I get the feeling both sides are hedging their bets and attempting to make the court look improper in order to set the stage for an appeal.

is koh's behaviour normal? seems out of place to me but I dont really know standard judge behaviour. Is her behaviour grounds enough for either side to call impartiality or misstrial or something? will be a factor in an appeal after trial?

I get the feeling both sides are hedging their bets and attempting to make the court look improper in order to set the stage for an appeal.

I'm kind of questioning Judge Koh's ability as a judge. Or, at least, a judge in patent cases.

Even though a number of judges dislike patent cases for a number of reasons, it was clear from the outset that she didn't want this case. Additionally, her ordering of the CEOs to meet to try and settle hints at a limited awareness of how companies operate. Her clock-watching seems almost compulsive, to the point of foregoing justice in the name of expediency.

While it's commendable to want a quick and fair trial, she seems to be leaning a little to heavily on the "quick" end of the equation. Yes, you have to run a tight courtroom. Yes, the judge is in charge. Yes, attorneys are happy to take advantage if they can. But the judge's entire approach in this case just seems a little cockeyed.

Actually, she has an extensive background as a lawyer (and later as a judge) in patent cases for Silicon Valley companies so she should be more than knowledgeable and capable to handle a case of this type. I believe her strict by-the-book method is a result of her frustration that these two companies cannot settle on such a silly issue. Whether or not that means it's proper for her to ask Apple lawyers if they're on crack, I dunno...

Also, I find it hilarious that the lawyer thought it prudent to clarify that he does not, in fact, smoke crack. Glad we cleared that one up, buddy!

I said before the trial began that the judge should have been replaced. The judge's conduct has been unprofessional and temperamental. She is a highly paid individual. She is in the legal profession, where it naturally comes with lots of paperwork and arguments. Grow up and deal with it or the court should find someone else who can handle the pressure.

20 witnesses in 4 hours? I'm curious about what they could have to contribute....all together it must be something if the lawyers are willing to risk pissing off the judge to accomplish it, but each individually couldn't have much to contribute....

I've hated her since day 1 for her ridiculous restrictions and appearance of impartiality. This made me like her a bit more, however, like someone commented on another site covering the same "smoking crack" story, she seems to be similar to sports officials who (wrongly) want to be the center of attention when calling a game instead of making the right calls.

To be honest, given this is merely the opening shots in what will be a long drawn, multiple appeal, legal battle, I think Judge Koh did the right thing putting the limit in place. The outcome of this trial only determines who files the appeal for the next round. Meanwhile, there's 14* jurors who are living life-interrupted right now so that two corps can engage in sniping at one another. You may as well claim the lawyers are the ones who want to be the center of attention when the engineers are the ones playing the game.

*-I'm assuming the standard 12+2 alternates.

I completely agree with you that this case is a complete waste of time other than the remote possibility that it will spark patent reform.

I've hated her since day 1 for her ridiculous restrictions and appearance of impartiality. This made me like her a bit more, however, like someone commented on another site covering the same "smoking crack" story, she seems to be similar to sports officials who (wrongly) want to be the center of attention when calling a game instead of making the right calls.

To be honest, given this is merely the opening shots in what will be a long drawn, multiple appeal, legal battle, I think Judge Koh did the right thing putting the limit in place. The outcome of this trial only determines who files the appeal for the next round. Meanwhile, there's 14* jurors who are living life-interrupted right now so that two corps can engage in sniping at one another. You may as well claim the lawyers are the ones who want to be the center of attention when the engineers are the ones playing the game.

*-I'm assuming the standard 12+2 alternates.

On the one hand, I like the way you framed it.. on the other though, isn't it the job of the first court to hear a case to hear it completely and fairly? With the appeals being reduced in scope unless one gets granted a full retrial?

People like to bag on judges, but not all are nutjobs. My last tour of jury duty was an ambulance chaser trial, and the Judge was thoroughly and visibly annoyed with the attorneys. After 2 days or legal shenanigans, she disposed of the trial and we went home. I was impressed.

20 witnesses in 4 hours? I'm curious about what they could have to contribute....all together it must be something if the lawyers are willing to risk pissing off the judge to accomplish it, but each individually couldn't have much to contribute....

is koh's behaviour normal? seems out of place to me but I dont really know standard judge behaviour. Is her behaviour grounds enough for either side to call impartiality or misstrial or something? will be a factor in an appeal after trial?

Yes to your first question; no to your last question.

A judge has a great deal of leeway in how he/she conducts court and the amount of frivilous nonsense he/she will tolerate. Both Apple and Samsung have done nothing to ingratiate themselves with this judge with their constant bickering and refiling of motions that have already been ruled on. Nothing that Judge Koh has said/done up this point could be construed as signs of bias on her part.

I said before the trial began that the judge should have been replaced. The judge's conduct has been unprofessional and temperamental. She is a highly paid individual. She is in the legal profession, where it naturally comes with lots of paperwork and arguments. Grow up and deal with it or the court should find someone else who can handle the pressure.

I don't really give a shit about the case or the companies, but aren't you the one paying her overtime?

I think Koh is over her head with all these high-powered lawyers. On the other hand, in her frustration, it is just possible that she might come up with a way for both parties to lose. She could reject Apple's trade dress arguments, citing prior art going back decades. And she could require Samsung to license their patents to Apple cheaply (and vice-versa). The rationale would be that both companies need competition.

I initially worried about Judge Koh being biased due to the Galaxy Nexus injunction. After that was slapped down, she seems to have become more and more disillusioned with both sides, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if she pulls a Posner at the end of it all.

I've hated her since day 1 for her ridiculous restrictions and appearance of impartiality. This made me like her a bit more, however, like someone commented on another site covering the same "smoking crack" story, she seems to be similar to sports officials who (wrongly) want to be the center of attention when calling a game instead of making the right calls.

To be honest, given this is merely the opening shots in what will be a long drawn, multiple appeal, legal battle, I think Judge Koh did the right thing putting the limit in place. The outcome of this trial only determines who files the appeal for the next round. Meanwhile, there's 14* jurors who are living life-interrupted right now so that two corps can engage in sniping at one another. You may as well claim the lawyers are the ones who want to be the center of attention when the engineers are the ones playing the game.

*-I'm assuming the standard 12+2 alternates.

On the one hand, I like the way you framed it.. on the other though, isn't it the job of the first court to hear a case to hear it completely and fairly? With the appeals being reduced in scope unless one gets granted a full retrial?

It is, but bear in mind the alternative: let each side take as long as it wants.

When the legal battle is little more than one more tactic employed in the overall negotiation/power struggle between the two companies, it is entirely expected that at least one - and possibly both - sides have a vested interest in dragging things on as long as possible. At some point, the "rights" of the multibillion dollar corporations to have their day in court has to be weighed against the rights of the jurors to not have to put their entire lives and families on hold to watch lawyers making more in a week than the juror sees in a year bicker on behalf of corporations which make more each day than the juror will see over a lifetime.

Maybe 25 hours was appropriate, maybe it should have been more (or less!), but limits have to be set.

20 witnesses in 4 hours? I'm curious about what they could have to contribute....all together it must be something if the lawyers are willing to risk pissing off the judge to accomplish it, but each individually couldn't have much to contribute....

Well, that's 12 min / witness, on average--maybe 10 minutes if one factors in a little overhead. Maybe the each witness will have just a few direct questions. It doesn't seem implausible.

I'm kind of questioning Judge Koh's ability as a judge. Or, at least, a judge in patent cases.

Even though a number of judges dislike patent cases for a number of reasons, it was clear from the outset that she didn't want this case. Additionally, her ordering of the CEOs to meet to try and settle hints at a limited awareness of how companies operate. Her clock-watching seems almost compulsive, to the point of foregoing justice in the name of expediency.

While it's commendable to want a quick and fair trial, she seems to be leaning a little to heavily on the "quick" end of the equation. Yes, you have to run a tight courtroom. Yes, the judge is in charge. Yes, attorneys are happy to take advantage if they can. But the judge's entire approach in this case just seems a little cockeyed.

Apple v. Samsung is not the only case on her docket. She has job requirements just like everyone else and moving cases is one of them. Setting a time limit for presentation is absolutely warranted in a case such as this and completely above board. If you can't present what you need to present in 25 hours, you're doing it wrong.